Outcome: Dismissed
Aug082012_02B2203
Our summary
Motion picture or television industry professional petitioner claimed published material and display criteria under EB-1A. AAO upheld director's denial, finding petitioner failed to meet the plain language requirements of the published material criterion and did not satisfy the threshold of three qualifying criteria types. Appeal dismissed.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
No criterion in the table was found met in this decision.
What was missing
- Awards · Director discussed and rejected; petitioner abandoned this issue on appeal
- Exhibitions · Director rejected; petitioner initially claimed published material, then sought reconsideration under exhibitions
- Membership · Director discussed and rejected; petitioner abandoned this issue on appeal
- Published material · AAO reviewed and found petitioner failed to meet all three evidentiary requirements of criterion
- Final merits · Petitioner failed to meet at least three types of qualifying evidence; lacks sustained acclaim for extraordinary ability
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Not met | Director discussed and rejected; petitioner abandoned this issue on appeal | |
| Not met | Director rejected; petitioner initially claimed published material, then sought reconsideration under exhibitions | |
| Not met | Director discussed and rejected; petitioner abandoned this issue on appeal | |
| Not met | AAO reviewed and found petitioner failed to meet all three evidentiary requirements of criterion | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence for this criterion | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence for this criterion | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed on appeal but AAO did not substantively analyze this criterion | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed on appeal but not substantively analyzed in this decision | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence for this criterion | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence for this criterion | |
| Not met | Petitioner failed to meet at least three types of qualifying evidence; lacks sustained acclaim for extraordinary ability |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
